Sunday, August 17, 2014

Good Morning Jessicca

Letter to my DaughterSunday, 17 August

Blind Justice

Good Morning
Jessicca…

The
courtroom serves as the final arbiter of our most impassioned legal disputes. Every attempt is made to dissipate emotion among
the parties involved yet the heavily choreographed search for truth and guilt results
in a theater of high drama. One such
proceeding involving judge, jury and advocates for the plaintiff and the
defense will be tasked with determining whether there is a justified legal basis
in the killing of one Michael Brown, resident of Ferguson, Missouri.

The legal
system attempts to provide a setting for the impartial hearing of facts in
order to arrive at a judgment as to a defendant’s culpability in crime. Every effort is made to ensure a fair weighing
of the facts but this, unfortunately, makes for no guarantee that justice will ultimately
be achieved. The law, as practiced in
the United States, theoretically presumes the innocence of any defendant brought
before the court and sets a high standard for establishing guilt in order to
minimize the chance of convicting an innocent individual. It is the task of the government prosecutor
to establish the defendant’s guilt in the minds of all twelve members of the
jury – guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If there is but one member of the jury entertaining
doubt about the defendant’s guilt then there can be no conviction. This holds true even if this panel member
feels in his heart that the defendant is guilty, yet his mind remains
uncertain.

A false
conclusion of guilt results in punishing the innocent. It is an abhorrent fact that this is
sometimes the case despite our legal protections to prevent this
injustice. It is also true that these
protections occasionally enable heinous criminals to escape punishment and walk
freely back into society. The courts may
blindly weigh the scales of justice but this doesn’t always result in the appropriate
outcome. We place the rule of law above
all other considerations but these laws are interpreted and administered by mere
mortal humans, dedicated to a righteous calling but also universally
fallible. Such is the nature of the progeny
of all who eat from the Fruit of Knowledge.
We discover the science that serves up miracles and, by so doing, we
reap a stinging humility that comes with the generous bounty. Our justice system serves this society remarkably
well but we mostly take note when it serves to stoke our outrage.

How is it OJ
could return to the golf course scot free?
Where was justice for Trayvon Martin?
Did the Supreme Court really elect George W. Bush?

There is relevance
in the videotape of Michael Brown’s actions in a convenience store ten minutes
prior to his death. It goes to the
credibility of the patrol officer’s account of a struggle with the
deceased. Is it plausible the young man
would struggle with the policeman for his gun?
Forensics should add to the body of evidence that will either serve to collaborate
the officer’s account or refute it or leave the issue contested. This incident is particularly important in
establishing the states of mind of the two individuals but it is not the
ultimate determinant of guilt. The legal
key to this case rests on whether Michael Brown had his hands raised in surrender
when he was fatally shot. Witness
testimony to this effect will be damning for the defendant if it holds up under
cross-examination before the jurors. If
the policeman, sworn to serve and protect the community, shot an unarmed,
defenseless man then the question becomes one of determining punishment
appropriate for the crime. What was the
officer’s frame of mind at that fatal moment?
Was he coldly executing a young man as some would claim? Did he fire in a moment of uncontrolled
anger? Was his adrenalin pumping following
a life-or-death struggle and he inadvertently discharged his weapon? What is the likelihood involving each of
these possibilities? These are all
questions left for the court to decide.
In the meantime we will all hotly debate this issue – in the context of
race, in the context of law and in the context of what we feel in our heart.